No where in the original article did it state that welfare recipients MUST also participate in the Choice program. In fact, it doesn't even offer the correlation of lowering the amount of welfare recipients like dietcoke is trying to state as fact.

There is nothing hypocritical about wanting welfare reform. Welfare isn't going away, I am not in favor of adding frivolous plans like free birth control for all. I am however in favor of reforming our current welfare system.

When you can start thinking at a higher level than a 2nd grader you can start to participate in these kinds of conversations at the big kid table.

No where in the original article did it state that welfare recipients MUST also participate in the Choice program. In fact, it doesn't even offer the correlation of lowering the amount of welfare recipients like dietcoke is trying to state as fact.

There is nothing hypocritical about wanting welfare reform. Welfare isn't going away, I am not in favor of adding frivolous plans like free birth control for all. I am however in favor of reforming our current welfare system.

When you can start thinking at a higher level than a 2nd grader you can start to participate in these kinds of conversations at the big kid table.

I forgive you for your harsh words and anger. You see, I have undertaken a reform myself. Jesus loves you, maybe someday you and him can overcome that drinking problem.

Yes it will drop abortion rates significantly but will not necessarily drop the amount of women on welfare, which in the long run is where a shit ton of taxes are going. The welfare whores won't care if there is contraceptive available or not...

Now I believe the women AND men who are in situations where they haven't planned the pregnancy should step up. I did not plan my pregnancy and was on birth control, even though I was trying to prevent a pregnancy didn't make me not step up. I have not relied on "the system" to provide for me or my daughter nor did i run to planned parenthood to kill the baby growing in me. I grew up, got two jobs and am going to school to better myself. If I can do it so can all the other women in a similar situation. Shit happens and plans change.

Yes it will drop abortion rates significantly but will not necessarily drop the amount of women on welfare, which in the long run is where a shit ton of taxes are going. The welfare whores won't care if there is contraceptive available or not...

Now I believe the women AND men who are in situations where they haven't planned the pregnancy should step up. I did not plan my pregnancy and was on birth control, even though I was trying to prevent a pregnancy didn't make me not step up. I have not relied on "the system" to provide for me or my daughter nor did i run to planned parenthood to kill the baby growing in me. I grew up, got two jobs and am going to school to better myself. If I can do it so can all the other women in a similar situation. Shit happens and plans change.

I think the math is pretty simple. Birth control is cheaper than abortion, and both are cheaper than raising a child. I don't need a study to tell me that it's far cheaper to give out free birth control now than to support those welfare babies for 18+ years, not to mention that may of those welfare babies will be the welfare parents of the next generation. So if you are of the opinion that it's the duty of society to prevent the suffering of their fellow man the this is probably the cheapest way to do it.

Now if you're of the opinion that other peoples suffering is not your concern then it make perfect sense to not want to have to help pay for another program aimed at preventing more suffering.

Probably what would be the best for society in the long run would be to let those that can't support themselves wither and die, but I'm not sure I want to see starving people dying in the streets.

You assume those on welfare will use the free birth control...that's the part you all seem to be missing

The 9000 women in the study did, but yes, that is a problem. If it's voluntary not all will do it. If it's mandatory to receive welfare what do you do with those that fail to comply? Watch them starve?

The 9000 women in the study did, but yes, that is a problem. If it's voluntary not all will do it. If it's mandatory to receive welfare what do you do with those that fail to comply? Watch them starve?

What other options do you have?

Continue to support people who refuse to support themself and never cut anyone off?

I don't have the answer, but I think reform of the current system is needed more than adding additional programs.

The problem is if you cut aid to people with an entitlement attitude, they will simply take what they want and crime goes up. It's almost like a protection racket- 'give us ours and we won't take yours'.

Continue to support people who refuse to support themself and never cut anyone off?

I don't have the answer, but I think reform of the current system is needed more than adding additional programs.

I do not see another option. Any system that tries to force people to accept responsibility for themselves has to allow suffering for those that refuse to do so.

I don't have an answer either, but the reforms to the system I'd like to see would be more programs like this, that help encourage facilitate responsible choices, and fewer programs that just seem to reward and facilitate irresponsible choices.

But in this case were helping them make good choices by enabling them to get birth control that they otherwise couldn't afford but which is much more effective that what they could afford.

Considering that it could make the difference between a woman getting pregnant, having a baby that she can't afford, spending the next 18 years on welfare raising the next generation of welfare parent vs. not getting pregnant, and maybe getting and education and becoming a productive member of society, or at least not giving birth to a future welfare parent, I think it's money well spent.

But in this case were helping them make good choices by enabling them to get birth control that they otherwise couldn't afford but which is much more effective that what they could afford.

Considering that it could make the difference between a woman getting pregnant, having a baby that she can't afford, spending the next 18 years on welfare raising the next generation of welfare parent vs. not getting pregnant, and maybe getting and education and becoming a productive member of society, or at least not giving birth to a future welfare parent, I think it's money well spent.

Here is why there is no incentive to use birth control-

Each child is a raise in income from welfare. This would only work if there was a cap on the number of children welfare will support.

But in this case were helping them make good choices by enabling them to get birth control that they otherwise couldn't afford but which is much more effective that what they could afford.

Considering that it could make the difference between a woman getting pregnant, having a baby that she can't afford, spending the next 18 years on welfare raising the next generation of welfare parent vs. not getting pregnant, and maybe getting and education and becoming a productive member of society, or at least not giving birth to a future welfare parent, I think it's money well spent.

In a perfect world yes, but who is to say those incentivised by having more children on welfare are willing to stop having children and use the birth control?